Kinematics of the hind limb in trotting horses after induced lameness of the distal intertarsal and tarsometatarsal joints and intra-articular administration of anesthetic

Abstract

Increased length of hind limb protraction and symmetry of tubera coxae vertical excursion are sensitive indicators of improvement in tarsal joint lameness. When evaluating changes in tarsal joint lameness, evaluating the horse from the side (to assess limb protraction) is as important as evaluating from the rear (to assess pelvic symmetry).

Computer-assisted kinematic evaluation of induced compensatory movements resembling lameness in horses trotting on a treadmill

“…This decrease in lameness is most likely attributable to the elastic properties of the frog and the viscoelastic properties and resultant stress relaxation of the sensitive supporting tissue in the foot in response to applied pressure. Other methods for induction of temporary lameness include shoes with round-headed, adjustable screws that apply pressure to the sole 34 and intra-articular injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) 35 or amphotericin B. 36 These are useful methods to induce lameness, but they do not induce a consistent degree of lameness (LPS and amphotericin B), cannot be effectively reversed in a short period (LPS and amphotericin B), or result in some residual lameness after reversal (sole-pressure method).…”

Understanding hind limb lameness signs in horses using simple rigid body mechanics

“…Veterinary assessment strategies broadly fall into two groups: examination of up-and down movement of the sacrum region or comparison of both tubera coxae. Similarly, for computerised detection of hind limb lameness, studies have focussed either on the quantification of sacrum movement asymmetry (Buchner et al, 1996;Kramer et al, 2000Peham et al, 2001;Audigie et al, 2002;Church et al, 2009) or comparative tubera coxae movement asymmetry (May and Wyn-Jones, 1987;Kramer et al, 2000;Church et al, 2009). Studies that used both approaches came to varying conclusions regarding optimal landmark choice and asymmetry features (Buchner et al, 1996;Kramer et al, 2000;Church et al, 2009;Starke et al, 2012c;Starke et al, 2013;Pfau et al, 2014).…”

“…For each of the three body landmarks (sacrum, LTC and RTC), several popular asymmetry measures based on trajectory extrema (Fig. 1cand supplementary information S1) were calculated(Uhlir et al, 1997;Peham et al, 1999;Kramer et al, 2000;Keegan et al, 2012): Symmetry Indices calculated as ratios of the two upward and two downward movement amplitudes (SI up , SI down ), differences between minima and maxima (Min_diff, Max_diff), the vector sum (VS) between Min_diff and Max_diff as well as Motion Symmetry (MS) based on signal decomposition (for details on measures see(Starke et al, 2012c)):…”

Effect of walking velocity on forelimb kinematics and kinetics

“…These techniques have been used to evaluate the effect of specific lamenesses on locomotion, such as superficial digital flexor tendinitis (Clayton et al 2000b,c), arthritis (Kramer et al 2000) and hoof pain (Buchner et al 1996a) and to monitor the response to surgical intervention Clayton et al 1998b). The value of gait analysis for detecting lameness is based on the ability to identify asymmetrical movement and limb loading during locomotion or to show deviations of movement and force profiles from normal patterns.…”